On DRC, Failure of 8+1 Leads to Grander Dream of 11+1, Of Kabila's Caving, Ladsous' Drones

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 5 -- After the failure in Addis Ababa of the UN's political framework for Eastern Congo, one expected some public explanation and even question and answer from the UN Tuesday in connection with the Security Council meeting on the topic.

  But despite the presence of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's personal envoy Susana Malcorra and head of Peacekeeping Herve Ladsous, neither did a UNTV stakeout.Here was Ladsous' last stakeout, on video.

  It was left to Security Council members to explain what went wrong in Addis, and what the next steps are.

  Inner City Press is informed by a country in the region that even after Ban's Eight Plus One format fell apart, there was a move to have a smaller group sign. 

  Rwanda's President Paul Kagame said he would sign. But Uganda's Yoweri Museveni, this read out goes, said it would have to be a larger group.

  Now the group has gotten "absurdly large," in the analysis of another Security Council member, to "Eleven Plus One." Of what benefit can such a large group be? 

   And why would those who rejected Eight Plus One agree on Eleven? "Look into what they got in the interim," it was suggested.

  What is the relation between this Eleven Plus One dream, which many said will be signed by the end of the month, and the Kampala talks with the M23? Little, apparently. 

  Might the M23 end up regretting being talked into leaving Goma when they did? Another Security Council member said, "Kabila caved too quickly, and now he's breaking his word."

  This leaves the issue of the intervention battalion, to engage in "peace enforcement," on which UN officials have given selective anonymous briefings -- which as reported caused anger in Addis, at the UN and its embedded and compliant correspondents.

  This is now separated from the Eleven Plus One political framework, tied to the wider mandate of the MONUSCO mission and to the drone that Herve Ladsous has pursued since last year, before he had any approval at all. Watch this site.

On DRC, One Country Pushed Back 5:30 Vote, ICP's Told It's US, On Outside Support & Envoy; TCCs

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 20 -- After Goma fell to the M23 mutineers without the UN's MONUSCO mission doing anything, at the Security Council on Tuesday France let it be known they wanted their draft resolution to be voted on by 5:30 pm. They describe their resolution as demanding that the M23 "disband," which seems unlikely.

  But after a closed door 3 pm meeting on Gaza broke up, French Ambassador Gerard Araud confirmed that "one country has invoked the rule of twenty four hours;" he said that meant the vote could be put off until 2 pm on Wednesday.

  Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Susan Rice, as she left the Council, "What about DRC?"

  Ambassador Rice replied, "We're working on it," then continued up the stairs.

  Searching wherever possible for information on this, well placed Security Council sources say the "one country" is the United States, on several bases: that the references to outside support have not been proved, and questions about Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointing some new envoy.

   Another concern raised to Inner City Press is that Troop Contributing Countries should be further consulted on a change of mandate. 

  More generally, just as the Security Council's Gaza process involves waiting to see what happens with the ceasefire talks in Cairo, on the DRC there's a move to wait and see what is agreed in Kampala, where DRC President Kabila, with whom Ban Ki-moon has not spoken, is meeting with Uganda's President Museveni and Rwanda's President Paul Kagame.

  The UN's role in the DRC has increasingly been one of failure. UN Peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous has refused to answer "who broke the ceasefire" between the M23 and the Congolese army FARDC. He directed his spokesperson to tell UN staff to keep the stakeout microphone away from Inner City Press when it asked this question on Saturday, November 17.

  The next day another DPKO spokesman told Inner City Press that who broke the ceasefire was just "a distraction." No, it's a factual question, that still hasn't been answered.

  After the fall of Goma, on November 20 Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesman Eduardo Del Buey, who made the decision for MONUSCO to not fight, and when?

  Del Buey replied, "the Force Commander on the ground decides what is best for safety of civilians, if to risk a firefight or hold fire" or "make sure you are observing and keeping records."

  Given the billions of dollars spent on MONUSCO and MONUC before it, one should be able to expect more than "record keeping."

  To many it is not credible that this decision, this glaring failure of the UN, was left up to the force commander on the ground. M23 had been advancing on Goma, this time, since at latest November 15. It pulled back and gave an additional 24 hour.

So where was UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous? Since he won't answer Press questions, why not a video briefing by Ban's DRC envoy Roger Meece or the force commander Del Buey was referring to? The UN put Meece on a video teleconference, belatedly, after UN inaction on the mass rape in Walikale. Why not now? Watch this site.

On DRC, France Seeks UN Sanctions on M23, No Call on Kabila to Talk

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 19 -- After the M23 mutineers got to the gates of Goma and turned back, giving Congolese president Joseph Kabila 24 hours to negotiate, when French Ambassador Gerard Araud arrived at the UN Security Council Monday morning this is not what he raised.

  Instead, Araud said his instructions from Paris are to circulate a resolution to sanction the M23 leaders. Cynics wonder what this would accomplish: do they travel or keep their funds in bank accounts?

  Araud said the Council was united on Saturday to pass a press statement -- which he said the M23 ignored -- and so he expects this sanctions resolution "before you eat your turkey" -- that is, before American Thanksgiving on Thursday, November 22.

  Inner City Press on Saturday asked UN Peacekeeping boss Herve Ladsous who broke the ceasefire in the Kivus on November 9. Ladsous refused to answer, directing his spokesman to tell UN staff to keep the microphone away from Inner City  Press.

  So on Sunday, after a DRC representative replied that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had scheduled a conversation with Kabila that day, Inner City Press asked the UN to confirm it, and asked why Ban spoke Saturday with Paul Kagame of Rwanda, but not Kabila.

Another Ladsous spokesman replied, among other things, that "who broke the ceasefire" was a "distraction" -- no, it's a factual question that the UN, spending as it does in the Congo, should be able to answer, should HAVE to answer -- but declined to answer about any Ban call to Kabila.

  And twelve hours later, there is still no answer.

  Some say the UN has given Kabila a blank check, to the extend that his soldiers won't even fight the M23: he counts on the UN, largely Indian and now perhaps Pakistani troups, to do it for him. Most places in the world, the UN says "negotiate." But not in the Congo. This increases dysfunction.

  Speaking of dysfunction, Ladsous walked into the Security Council Monday morning, not on the DRC but rather on piracy. The sea is in his blood. More on this to follow. Watch this site.

On DR Congo, Rice Tells ICP Solution Should Involve Rebels, Without Conditions

By Matthew Russell Lee, Exclusive

UNITED NATIONS, October 10 -- With the M23 mutineers entrenched around Rutshuru in Eastern Congo and Congolese President Joseph Kabila refusing to hold talks with them, the UN Security Council met on the topic on Wednesday afternoon.

  Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Susan Rice, after an hour and twenty minutes of the meeting, is the US thinks President Kabila should speak with M23, or only with his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame.

  Rice told Inner City Press, exclusively as it happened, that the solution should be "regional," with the "governments and rebel groups." She added, "I don't think there should be conditions on what it takes to resolve it."

The briefing, sources told Inner City Press, was requested by France, which has a troubling history in Rwanda and the Congo. Nevertheless, French Ambassador Gerard Araud left before Rice, an hour and 50 minutes before he was scheduled to speak at Colombia University -- about Syria.

  On the Kivus, France said only that there should be a dialogue between Kinshasa and Kigala -- with no mention of the rebels of the M23 and the issues they have raised.

   An interested non-Council diplomat told Inner City Press, "They are going for a PRST" or Presidential Statement, since the most recent regional talks about the Congo went so badly. 

   There was speculation if this might impact Rwanda's candidacy for a Security Council seat for 2013-14, with the election to be held later this month.

"So far it's still a clean slate," the source observed, wondering if another African country might emerge to challenge Rwanda. To us, this seems unlikely. Watch this site.

UN GA Schedule Has Iran, Chavez & Sri Lanka, Syria on Last Day, Qatar on First

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 14 -- After next month's UN General Assembly is kicked off on the morning of Tuesday, September 25 by Brazil's Dilma Rousseff and US President Barack Obama, then things get interesting. Inner City Press is putting the Provisional List of Speakers online here.

  The next day, Iran's head of state Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is scheduled to speak in the morning. Sri Lanka's Mahinda Rajapaksa starts that afternoon's session, which includes Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

  Also on the afternoon of September 26 is Rwanda's President Paul Kagame, followed the next morning by Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with the so-called M23 mutineers probably still on the agenda.

  But another son-of-a-leader, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, is not scheduled to come. Syria is related to what some call "garbage time" the next week and even month. On Monday, October 1, Syria is penciled in at only the Ministerial level.

  The same is true of the world's most populous democracy, India: only a minister will come, on October 1. Ethiopia, perhaps not surprisingly, plans to send its Deputy Prime Minister, on Friday, September 28 -- the same day Venezuela's Head of State -- Hugo Chavez? -- is scheduled to speak.

  Evo Morales of Bolivia is the last speaker on September 26, perhaps ready with the coca leaf he's waved before. Palestine is the last speaker on the morning of September 27 -- will another announcement be made?

  Turkey, which roughed up UN Security during Mahmoud Abbas' presentation last year, is set this year for the first day, but not in the premium time between Barack Obama and, well, France's new president Francois Hollande.

  In that Tuesday morning space is Qatar, armer of rebels everywhere, and Serbia whose Vuk Jeremic will have taken over the presidency of the the General Assembly from Qatar. 

  Morocco is in there, in the midst of its supposed dispute with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about his Western Sahara envoy Christopher Ross.

  Also Tuesday morning there is Cyprus, which holds the presidency of the European Union (whose own spot comes on the next afternooon), Georgia, Indonesia and Bulgaria, sure to talk about this summer's terrorist attack.

Tuesday afternoon, beyond Turkey, has Finland (which isrunning for a Security Council seat against Australia -- confined to Thursday -- and Luxembourg). There are also Argentina sure to talk about the Malvinas, and Myanmar, unlikely to meaningfully address the abused Rohingyas.

What will have happened with the Rohingyas, with Assad and M23, by this debate in late September? Watch this site.

Rwanda's Mushikiwabo Calls UN Mission a Failure, HRW a Fraud

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, June 25 -- Rwandan Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo told the Press on Monday that she and Major Patrick Karuretwa, Security Adviser to President Paul Kagame are in New York and Washington "on UN business."

  When Inner City Press asked Minister Mushikiwabo for her view on the MONUSCO mission and its chief Roger Meece, her answer made it clear that radical change at MONUSCO, the Department of Peaekeeping Operations and even the Security Council which sent the mission 13 years ago are on Rwanda's agenda.

  Minister Mushikiwabo said that MONUSCO, spending $1.3 billion a year, has failed to protect civilians and may have "become local."

  Inner City Press asked Minister Mushikiwabo to respond to charges that the M23 mutineers in the Congo are assisted by Rwandan Defense Minister James Kaberebe, chief of defense staff Charles Kayonga, and General Jacques Nziza, a military adviser to Kagame.


  Minister Mushikiwabo said that she is a reader of Inner City Press, and likes independent investigation. She told Inner City Press, "I've seen some of your writings on this conflict, I used to be minister in charge of media, I always like to see reporters doing their own investigations instead of repeating reports." Video here, from Minute 12:54.

She denied categorically that these officials have assisted the mutiny, saying that in fact they had urged the mutineers not to break away, but rather to press the government in Kinshasa to live up to its commitments of March 23, 2009. 
 
  Inner City Press asked Minister Mushikiwabo what changes Rwanda would like to see to the mandate of the MONUSCO mission. 


  She said it should be rethought after 13 years, then gave the floor to Major Patrick Karuretwa, who proceeded to say that Human Rights Watch is a problem.

  Minister Mushikiwabo said that Human Rights Watch has "no credibility," that they think "because it's Africa, anything goes... a few exotic names and acronyms [then] fundraising dinners." 


  She blamed the media which, essentially, ask Human Rights Watch about HRW's own flawed reports and then use the quotes.

At the UN we can say: the HRW representative is a former journalist from Le Monde who is routinely quoted by those he used to know as fellow correspondents. Yet when he and HRW boss Ken Roth were confronted with a rare case of a journalists in Headquarters facing death threats from extremists triggered from within the UN itself, HRW has done nothing.

  Inner City Press asked Minister Mushikiwabo about the status of Rwanda's run for a Security Council seat next year, with the election in October 2012. 


  She said the campaign is on track in East Africa and the African Union, and that outreach has been made to Beijing and Moscow, Washington, London and Paris and other countries too.
  She said Rwanda is a major peacekeeping contributor, with 4000 soldiers in Darfur and others in South Sudan, Liberia and Haiti. Twenty years after the genocide, she said, Rwanda should be on the Security Council.

  Afterward Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesirky for his or DPKO chief Ladsous' response. First Nesirky referred the question to the Security Council.


  When it was made clear Rwanda is questioning MONUSCO's implementation of the mandate given to it by the Council, particularly on protection of civilians, Nesirky said maybe there will be an answer later. He cut off the briefing without allowing a question for which Inner City Press long had hand raised. Video here.


   Then Inner City Press asked US Ambassador Susan Rice, back at the Security Council, about Minister Mushikiwabo's critique of MONUSCO. She said, "It's not on their territory." 


  But it seems clear that Rwanda will be joining the Security Council that sets such missions' mandates, and considers Group of Experts' sanctions reports and annexes or addenda. So what will happen with the current annex in limbo? Watch this site.

As Egyptians Push for Change, UN's Ban Ki-moon Warns of “Political Instability”

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 30 -- As in Egypt protests calling for Hosni Mubarak to leave continue, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in Addis Ababa was quoted that Egyptians “have the right to express their visions, in demonstrations, but all these should not lead to social instability and political instability.”

Even in front of the empty UN in New York, hundred chanted “Mubarak must go.” The call is to end 30 years of rule under an emergency law allowing censorship, even if that was deemed politically stable. Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky, asked Friday by the press if Ban thought the emergency law should be eliminated, declined to answer the question directly.

Midday on January 30, Inner City Press queried Nesirky and his deputy Farhan Haq about the status of the UN system's programs in Egypt, including a program which NGOs have criticized “as ineffective, complaining that it has BANned credible human [rights] lawyers from giving lectures to the police because of their political opposition to the NDP, and instead invites MOI officials complicit in torture to give human rights presentations.”

But five hours later, there were no answers nor acknowledgment of the questions about the UN in Egypt.

Even Ban's quote against political instability hadn't been distributed, perhaps understandably, to the UN press list by his Public Information and Spokesperson's office, which in the interim had sent the Press anodyne “read outs” of Ban's meetings with Rwandan President Paul Kagame and French President Nicolas Sarkozy -- with no mention of Egypt.

With Kagame, Ban discussed only sexually based violence, and not counter reports of genocide and war crimes in Eastern Congo.

With Sarkozy, Ban did not bring up Tunisia nor Egypt, but rather Lebanon, Haiti and Cote d'Ivoire. The interest of the UN under Ban in democracy seems to some to be limited to one country, and not extend to Tunisia, much less Egypt (or Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria -- or Myanmar). Watch this site.

As UN Report on Congo Is Toned Down, UN Won't Say By Whom, Ban's Role

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 1, 2010 -- Hours after the publication of the UN's “watered down” report on war crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky refused to disclose who in the UN, particularly in the Secretariat of Ban Ki-moon, was involved in making the changes from the stronger draft version of the Mapping Report.

Ban delayed publication of the report after President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, criticized in the report, threatened to pull Rwandan troops from UN peacekeeping missions including in Darfur. Ban flew to Kigali and discussed -- or negotiated -- with Kagame.

With the report issued in modified and watered down form, Inner City Press asked Nesirky about the involvement of Ban's legal office, beyond the lawyers of High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, in watering down the report. Here are three initial examples:

an earlier reference to "damning elements" that could be used by a court to conclude that genocide took place has been changed to "inculpatory elements.” Another section elaborates at length — compared with the earlier draft — on a number of "countervailing factors" that could be used to argue that such a crime didn't take place. A draft section that dismissed mitigating arguments was dropped entirely.

I think you've got it backwards, Nesirky replied.

Inner City Press asked, “it wasn't watered down?” Nesirky never answered this, rather emphasizing that the HCHR has experience lawyers. Yes, but what was the involvement of the legal office of Ban, who negotiated with Kagame?

Nesirky denied that Ban negotiated with Kagame, and then was questioned by BBC and Al Jazeera about Ban's failure to now make any recommendations about prosecution, and by CNN about Ban not making himself available for questions on this long anticipated day of publication.

Ban's only listed appointments of the day are with the Ambassador of Pakistan, and hosting a reception about the MDGs. It should be noted that after Ban named Kagame and Spain's Zapatero as the co-chairs of his MDG Advocacy Group, Zapatero refused to meet with Kagame due to war crimes charges pending against him in the Spanish courts. After this Mapping Report, will things only get worse? Watch this site.

Obama Does Not Mention Bashir, Whose VP Taha Praises Obama at UN Sudan Meet

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 24 -- The open portion of the UN Sudan meeting was as surprising for what was not said as for what was. US President Barack Obama in his ten minute speech did not once mention Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and genocide.

Sudan's Vice President Ali Osman Taha on the other hand, or perhaps in reciprocation, praised “the next direction and the emergent spirit of the United States of America of positive and constructive engagement.”

Inner City Press was allowed in the meeting for the first four speakers, and got the first copy of Taha's prepared speech. That the praise of Obama was in the prepared text may imply that Taha and his government knew that Bashir would not be mentioned.

Similarly, after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Taha earlier in the week, Inner City Press asked her spokesman PJ Crowley about Bashir, and specifically whether he would require a meeting and photo op if the UN Security Council visits the country as initially planned on October 4 to 11, Crowley said Bashir “did not come up” in the meeting.

After being asked to leave Friday's Sudan meeting after Ban Ki-moon, Obama, Taha and Salva Kiir spoke, Inner City Press asked a Security Council Ambassador if any progress had been made on scheduling the Council trip to Sudan, which members such as Austria and Mexico want.

No, the Ambassador said, maybe after the meeting. Asked by Inner City Press about Obama not mentioning Bashir, the Ambassador nodded and added, “it will be interesting to see how many of the African heads of state present mention Bashir and how.” Yes, it will.

Rwanda's Paul Kagame left the meeting after the first four speakers, as did Nick Clegg of the UK. The EU's Catherine Ashton left while Salvia Kiir was talking, after having sat near the back of the room typing on a laptop. It is expected that top UN Peacekeeper Alain Le Roy will take questions from the Press after the meeting is over and the Communique is issued.

Obama, UN's Ban and Le Roy on Sept 24, Bashir not shown, (c) M.R. Lee

Earlier today -- before the meeting -- Inner City Press published a near final draft of the Communique. At Friday's noon briefing at the UN, Inner City Press asked Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky to describe the role of the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Department of Political Affairs in the Communique. Nesirky, who should answer this question, has yet to. Watch this site.

On MDGs, UN's Ban Won't Comment on Debt, Tax Havens or Zapatero Dodging Kagame

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, September 22 -- With the Millennium Development Goals having been discussed at the UN for three days, Inner City Press asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to respond to a critique that the MDGs look only at the symptom and not causes of poverty. UN transcript here and below.

Over $500 billion is owned by poor countries in foreign debt. Over $124 billion a year flow through offshore tax havens. Inner City Press asked Ban about both of these.

Ban said “those issues which you raised have been the subjects which have been discussed in the international community. I think it's not appropriate for me to discuss those matters here at this time.” If not now, during the MDG Summit, when?

Earlier on Wednesday, when it suddenly became clear that questions would be taken at the meeting of Ban's MDG Advocacy Group, Inner City Press ran from the UN correspondents' area over the library, through the garage and a metal detector check, through the General Assembly lobby and media room, only to be stopped by security. Armed with a floor pass, Inner City Press proceeded, reaching the ECOSOC chamber ten minutes before the Q&A session ended.

But Ban's spokesman Martin Nesirky shook his head, running his finger across his throat, it's over. Nevertheless he called on Jeffrey Sachs to issue a duplicative answer to a question.

When Inner City Press wanted to asking, as well as about debt and money laundering, was the sudden departure of co-chair Zapatero of Spain. In the first Advocacy Group meeting in Madrid, Zapatero refused to meet with his co-chair Paul Kagame of Rwanda, who is being sued in Spain for war crimes.

This time, Zapatero left to return to business in Madrid. Nesirky did not allow the question during the Advocacy Group's media availability. At noon in the briefing room, he told Inner City Press to asked the Spanish Mission about Zapatero's departure.

But can Ban's and the UN's MDG Advocacy Group function with two co-chair who won't meet? Watch this space.

Footnote: Inner City Press asked Michelle Bachelet about the Advocacy Group, in which she served until being named head of UN Women. Bachelet dodged on the Zapatero Kagame relationship, as well as on Inner City Press' question if she would finally bring zero tolerance to sexual abuse and exploitation by UN peacekeepers. Watch this site.

From the UN's transcription of September 22:

Inner City Press: On the MDGs, there's a criticism made by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Mr. [Olivier] de Schutter, where he says that the MDGs may be just treating the symptoms. He points to things like off-shore tax havens, and the ability of leaders to take money out of their countries, and he points to debt relief, the debt service by poor countries adding up to about $500 billions. So he says that there is danger of focussing on charity as opposed to structural things that hurt poor countries. I wanted to have your response to that, also, one thing I noticed this morning is that, of your two co-chairs, Mr. Zapatero left. I know that in Madrid, the two didn't meet because of sort of war crimes and other issues. Have those issues been resolved and could the two men work together to promote MDG Advocacy Group?

SG Ban: There should be no mix-up between development and politics. Prime Minister Zapatero explained to me two days ago that because of his very urgent domestic issues, he had to go back. That I understood. Because, every leader, they may have certain domestic issues on which they have to put priority. The MDG Advocacy Group meeting today was, I think, a great success. You have seen such a strong commitment among, not only MDG advocates, champions, but all other leaders participating in that. And for other matters, I think all those issues which you raised have been the subjects which have been discussed in the international community. I think it's not appropriate for me to discuss those matters here at this time.